Bay Area Divorce Lawyer Blog

"This case presents an issue that would vex Solomon himself." That's how the Fourth District Court of Appeals described In re Marriage of Keith, a child custody case that ultimately turned on the parents' efforts (or lack thereof) to facilitate their daughter's relationship with each other.

Holly and Keith married in 2004, had a child (Daughter) in 2005 and separated a year later. Unbeknownst to Keith, Holly and Daughter then moved to Arizona. Holly also obtained a restraining order against Keith, accusing him of physical abuse. An Orange County court later order quashed the restraining order and required her to return to California.

Back in California, a court granted Holly a new restraining order against Keith as well as sole legal and physical custody of Daughter. Keith completed a court-ordered batterer's intervention program and was permitted monitored visits with Daughter. After the couple divorced in 2008, Holly sought permission to move back to Arizona with Daughter. Keith opposed the move, claiming that Holly had sought to isolate him from Daughter and destroy their relationship, first by claiming that he had assaulted Holly, then by moving "surreptitiously" from Irvine to La Quinta and finally by seeking to move to Arizona.

In a child custody evaluation completed prior to trial, Dr. W. Russell Johnson recommended that Holly be granted primary physical custody - with Keith being granted "liberal" visitation rights - if she remained in California. If Holly were to move Arizona, however, Johnson concluded that Keith should be granted primary physical custody. In the latter situation, "[Daughter]'s best interests require that she be placed in her father's physical custody because he is more likely than her mother to support her relationship with her non-residential parent," Johnson determined. The trial court granted Keith primary physical custody.

The Fourth District affirmed the decision on appeal. The court explained that a trial court considering a custody issue has "the widest discretion to choose a parenting plan that is in the best interest of the child," but must weigh the health, safety, and welfare of the child, as well as any history of abuse by one parent of the other. Because Holly had obtained a restraining order against Keith, the court said that there was a presumption that granting her primary physical custody was in Daughter's best interest. Keith rebutted this presumption, however, by showing that he had completed the batterer's intervention program and had not been accused of physical violence since that time.

As a new family law attorney my very first litigation matter involved a client whose spouse's attorney was the (now disgraced) Mary Nolan. It was a horrific experience for me and I ultimately told my client that he needed to retain a different kind of attorney - the quintessential 'shark' litigator, if he was going to survive this divorce with Ms. Nolan on the other side. The great benefit that I derived from this experience is that I learned very early how ugly divorce could be, that the traditional process did not work for me or for the clients. I knew there had to be a better way.

A six-count indictment on September 18, 2012 charged Mary Nolan with tax evasion and unlawfully intercepting communications. Recently, Ms. Nolan pled not guilty to charges that she hired a private investigator, who was a central character in Contra Costa County's "dirty DUI" scandal, to illegally install listening devices inside the car of a client's ex-husband.

Mr. David Dutcher, from Contra Costa County, challenged a custody ruling he claims was based on a DUI charge that occurred after his ex-wife paid a blonde woman to trick into drunk driving. Mr. Dutcher said he was arrested and pulled over for drunken driving in 2008 shortly after he was propositioned by two young women to come home with them and 'continue things in the hot tub'.

Mr Dutcher was on a second date with a woman he had met on Match.com, when she started chugging shots of hard alcohol and kissing him on the lips.
A second blonde showed up and they both flashed their breasts, before asking him to join them at home in the hot tub.

But just after leaving the restaurant, Mr Dutcher was pulled over for drunken driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.12 per cent, above the legal limit of 0.08 percent. Shortly after his conviction, his ex-wife's lawyer, Ms. Nolan, filed a motion in court seeking to reduce his time with the children (and increase his ex-wife's child support). Ms. Nolan claimed to have inadvertently learned of Dutcher's drunken-driving episode and wanted to make the court aware of his run-in with the law. A judge then reduced the amount of time he could spend with his children because of his arrest. Mr. Dutcher has argued that his ex-wife orchestrated his arrest to gain advantage in the divorce case.

In another complaint filed in Contra Costa County Superior Court, Declan Woods of Clayton alleges that Mary Nolan was looking for an advantage for her client, Woods' estranged wife. and hired Butler to set up Woods to be arrested for drunken driving.

Not surprisingly, in my case with Ms. Nolan, her trumped up allegations of domestic violence were very detrimental to my client and their five children who were only permitted to see each other through supervised visitation. This was a family of relatively modest means whose assets were quickly depleted by Ms. Nolan's fee churning antics. And although the wife surely did not recognize it at the time and maybe still doesn't, Ms. Nolan's conduct was also detrimental to her since it resulted in an unnecessarily emotionally and financially burdensome process. And nor did her attorney encourage a positive and supportive co-parenting relationship, the touchstone of a good divorce.

But I was inspired to find a new and better way to help couples divorce and and trained in Collaborative Law and Mediation so that I could escape "the machine" and help couples divorce with their personal and economic dignity intact. To learn more about how to end your marriage with your personal and economic dignity intact, contact the Law and Mediation Office of Lorna Jaynes.

A judge from the state of Minnesota, Michael Haas, said the following in 2001.

"Your children have come into this world because of the two of you. Perhaps you two made lousy choices as to whom you decided to be the other parent. If so, that is your problem and your fault.

No matter what you think of the other party - or whatever your family thinks of the other party- these children are one-half of each of you. Remember that, because every time you tell your child what an "idiot" his father is, or what a "fool" his mother is, or how bad the absent parent is, or what terrible things that person has done, you are telling the child half of him is bad.

That is an unforgivable thing to do to a child. That is not love. That is possession. If you do that to your children, you will destroy them as surely as if you had cut them into pieces, because that is what you are doing to their emotions.
I sincerely hope that you do not do that to your children. Think more about your children and less about yourselves, and make yours a selfless kind of love, not foolish or selfish, or your children will suffer."

Wise words from a judge, but the sad part is that by the time a judge makes comments of that nature, the damage has been done. Sadly, many parents do not understand long-term impacts their divorce has on children and they are so focused on themselves that only a very small percentage have constructive divorces such through mediation or Collaborative Divorce. The nature of the parents' relationship, pre and post-divorce, permanently impacts children.

See the work of Judith Wallerstein, a psychologist who triggered a national debate about the consequences of divorce by reporting that it hurt children more than previously thought. Much of the damage, however, can be mitigated by conscious parents who divorce with care and compassion.

A successful co-parenting arrangement depends on the child, the parents, and how the parents treat each other and their children. It matters whether the arrangements accurately reflect the needs and wishes of the child, but at the same time, the choices should not generally be left up to the children as that puts them in a very difficult place. It's a complex undertaking. What works for a child at one age may be harmful to the same child at another developmental stage. One size can never fit all children or families. Children who are required to traverse a battleground between warring parents show serious symptoms that affect their physical and mental health. The research findings on how seriously troubled these children are and how quickly their adjustment deteriorates are very powerful. The bottom line that our studies show is that the legal form of custody is not what matters in the child's welfare. Nor is there any study that shows the amount of time spent with a parent is relevant to psychological adjustment. 

Parents who spend thousands of dollars in legal fees to fight over the merits of joint or sole custody of their child are simply wasting their time and money. Litigation does not constructively address the emotions involved. Rather, it adds fuel to the fire. No model of custody or time-sharing determines how well children do after their parents' divorce. Joint custody can work very well or poorly for the child. The same is true of sole custody with visitation. What matters is the mental health of the parents, the quality of the parent-child relationships, the degree of anger versus cooperation between the parents, plus the age, temperament, and flexibility of the child.

Divorce education and appropriate dispute resolution such as Collaborative Divorce and mediation can help parents do less destructive things to their children during and after the divorce. With offices throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, California divorce lawyer Lorna Jaynes provides innovative legal tools to resolve many family law disputes without the bitterness and acrimony engendered by the adversarial process.

In a recent ruling in the matter of In re T.J., the Second District Court of Appeals tackled an important question that often arises in California child custody cases: which court has jurisdiction to consider a custody matter when the parents live in different states?

RJ and AJ married in Texas in 2001 and had a son, TJ, two years later. The couple split in 2004 and AJ moved to New Jersey with the child. The parents obtained a divorce in Texas in 2007. Through mediation, they reached a custody agreement under which AJ was declared the "Sole Managing Conservator" of T.J., with the right to decide his primary residence while RJ was given detailed visitation rights. RJ talked to TJ over the phone regularly and the child spent long stretches of the summer in Texas with his father.

After living together in New Jersey for several years, AJ and the child moved to California in 2011. The move was in part intended to help AJ cope with depression, her thinking being that the weather and a location change would improve her general mood. A few months after the move, however, AJ checked herself into a clinic with depression and thoughts of suicide. A hospital social worker referred TJ to the L.A. Department of Children and Family Services because AJ was unable to make other arrangements for him while she was being treated. AJ later completed her treatment.

The Department filed a petition in state court pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, which gives courts jurisdiction to ajudicate matters concerning a minor child who has suffered or is at substantial risk of suffering "serious physical harm or illness, as a result of the failure or inability of his or her parent or guardian to adequately supervise or protect the child." RJ then filed a motion seeking custody. The court later ordered that TJ be placed in his mother's home under Department supervision.

On appeal, the Second District reversed the decision, finding that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to issue it. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, which has been adopted as law in both California and Texas, "is the exclusive method for determining the proper forum in custody cases involving other jurisdictions and governs juvenile dependency proceedings," the court explained. Because the original decision regarding TJ's custody was rendered by the Texas court, that court maintained exclusive jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to decide any further custody-related issues.

Even for happily married and intact families, the holidays can be fraught with conflict and compromise. But for divorced or separated parents and for blended families - the potential for conflict is significantly higher. Negotiating co-parenting agreements and sharing time with kids is rarely easy, but this is a time of year when it can be most difficult to let go because of the tradition and ritual around how the holidays are managed.

But for the sake of the kids you have to share it. And here are tips to
help your holiday season be filled with merriment - not resentment.

Make a plan


If you don't already have a holiday schedule, do it now. You don't want to create anxiety for the kids about what they're going to be doing at Christmas. Sit down with your ex and a calendar to determine how you're going to share time during the holiday break. The plan can be fluid and can change, but a basic structure reduces mis-communication and sets expectations. Ideally, a vacation and holiday schedule will be part of a marital settlement agreement in a divorce. Think about the even year - odd year compromise. One parent gets first choice in even years and the other in odd years or simply switch the holiday time on an alternating year basis. For example, in even years one parent may have the children for Christmas Eve and morning, then take them to the other parent at noon. In odd years, the schedule would be reversed. Often it is worthwhile to go over the kids Christmas presents together to avoid duplicate gifts and to ensure that similar amounts will be spent. For co-parents who live far away from each other it's not so easy. If you have to be without your kids for the entire holiday make sure you can call and talk to them.

Focus on the kids


As a mediator who helps couples resolve parenting and custody issues, I sometimes have a photo of the kids on the table during a session and ask: "What do you think they would really enjoy? What would work for them?"

That can be as simple as letting the kids call mom on Christmas Eve or attend a special holiday event with Dad. For mom Maureen Palmer, the answer was more extreme. When she and her husband split up, their daughters, then aged 15 and 10, stayed behind in Edmonton with their dad while palmer took a job as a TV producer in Vancouver. She'd do homework with them every night over the phone and fly back to Alberta for four or five days twice a month (a schedule she kept up for a decade).

"Christmas was very, very big in our family," she says, and her girls weren't ready to let that go. So for two weeks every Christmas, she would camp out in her ex-husband's basement - once with her boyfriend in tow. "I sort of took over and did Christmas the same way we did when we were married," said Palmer, who went on to make the documentary How to Divorce and Not Wreck the Kids. It wasn't easy being a guest in her former home, and her need to impose her version of "order" on her ex's household created tension. "But Christmas morning was child-centered, and we both enjoyed their joy so much, that how we felt about each other barely registered," says Palmer. "We didn't want them to feel any of the tension kids who are pulled between two households feel."



As for me, well I am having my partner's ex-wife and husband over for Christmas so that their kids get to be with both of their parents.

And although children's preferences should always be a priority, it is also important not to them too much input into how they spend the holidays. The burden of choice is problematic for kids "because they know it's going to make one of the parents really unhappy. Kids will often tell each parent whatever they believe he or she wants to hear. And for most children, that is a terrible place to be. Kids need a predictable schedule that both parents seem happy with, even if that means putting on a brave face. Practice emotional restraint, maturity and leadership. The most important thing is to continue to be loving parents, and to keep the conflict away from the kids.



Create new traditions


Your holiday celebrations may have changed after the divorce, but they can still be wonderful. Think together with your kids about how you want to celebrate the holidays. And though it will be painful, be prepared to let go of some of the activities you used to do. Don't make the kids feel bad that they missed out on something when they come home.

And no matter how sad or angry you are, never badmouth your ex in front of the kids. Save that for a good friend, therapist or support group. 



Stay busy


If you're going to be on your own for the holidays, be prepared and plan for it. Maybe it would help to celebrate with other family and friends, or perhaps a quiet evening at home with a special meal. Or venture out and volunteer to help others, go on a trip or do something else special for yourself.

Stay hopeful


It is the best gift you can give yourself and your loved ones. Make the commitment to take the time that's needed to heal and remember that healing is a process, so give yourself the time and space to find hope and healing.

And if you cannot agree, consider a mediator. A mediator is like a referee or better yet, your first grade teacher: Someone who will help you play nicely in the sandbox, or in this case the mediator's office, and hopefully just long enough to make a deal.

For more information, visit us at www.lornajaynes.com

The Court of Appeals for California's Fourth District recently explained in In re C.C. that a parent can be found to have abandoned his or her children for custody purposes, even if the parent continues to pay child support.

Charles and Misty were married in Pennsylvania in April 2001, less than a year after the birth of their first child, M.C. The couple later had another child, C.C., before divorcing in 2005. Misty was granted primary custody of the children, while Charles was ordered to pay $500 a month in support and awarded regular visitation.

Misty later married Eric and, in 2007, a Pennsylvania court granted her permission to move with the children to San Diego, where Eric was stationed in a military position. Eric, who had contributed financial support for the children since 2006, later filed a petition in California seeking to free the children from Charles's custody and control on the ground of abandonment. Eric also requested to adopt the children as a stepparent.

Charles fought the petition in a 2011 hearing, arguing that he had been unable to communicate with the children via weekly video conferencing ordered by the Pennsylvania court because he and Misty could not agree on the specific type of conferencing required. Specifically, he argued that his computer webcam was not compatible with the equipment Misty used and that she would not pay for him to get an upgrade. He also alleged that Misty did not tell him about the move until months after it happened, refused to make the children available by phone and did not provide a mailing address.

M.C., now 10 years old, testified at trial that he loved and wanted to be adopted by his "dad" Eric. M.C. also remembered Charles, but said he had not seen his father since 2005 or 2006. The trial court observed M.C. was "obviously very attached" to Eric, while C.C. referred to Eric as "daddy," and had no memory of Charles. The court also noted that Charles took no action to try to resolve his alleged inability to communicate with the children from 2007 to 2010, and made only token attempts to contact them during this time. As a result, the court granted Eric's petitions.

At my favorite local restaurant last weekend I recognized a former divorce mediation client. She did not recognize me as I was dressed in early 19th century garb for a historical event. As I approached her table to say hello, I saw that she was with her former husband, also my client, and their two children.

Since it was a busy Sunday morning brunch in the restaurant and they were with their two young children, it felt inappropriate to inquire about the nature of their dining together. But I have to assume that it was one of two possibilities: (1) either they had reconciled, or (2) they were enjoying a post-divorce family brunch.

I suspect it was the latter, but either way, both are positive and wonderful outcomes that, in my opinion, would almost never occur had the divorce been a contested/litigated one.
This client, pleased with the mediation process, later referred a colleague of hers to me. When I met with the prospective client and her husband I asked, as I often do, what were the hopes and goals of each for themselves, their spouse and their children. The woman responded that she did not care what happened to her husband and did not want him to have any meaningful time with their children. This should have been a big red flag for me that perhaps mediation was not a suitable process for her.

What I should have said to the prospective clients and in particular the wife is that mediation may not be the right choice since it requires more honesty and fair-mindedness and the ability to value post-divorce family relationships than she might be capable of.

Not surprisingly, the case fell apart shortly thereafter and the parties retained litigation counsel and well over a year later, are still battling. Instead of working together to create a good outcome for all, they are presumably paying opposing attorneys to draft disparaging briefs as to the parenting skills and abilities of the other, which may or may not include false accusations and parental alienation, and filing and serving and complying with costly discovery requests rather than simply exchanging the requisite financial information required in any divorce, and the children are surely bearing the brunt of all this negativity.

My mediation clients who dined together on the other hand, even though there was considerable conflict and disappointment at the beginning, learned to see the divorce as a problem to be solved rather than a battle to be won, and learned to focus on creating a new family model for the benefit of their children. Together they worked in mediation to complete their financial disclosures, ascertain the nature of separate/community property and divide the property equitably. Together they discussed and decided how to co-parent and financially support their children, and in the process created a positive, respectful and supportive co-parenting relationship, indeed a positive, respectful, and supportive new family structure that enables joint outings like this that are sure to benefit their children tremendously.

I felt proud and satisfied that I was able to facilitate a process that enabled both clients and their children to enjoy each other's company together as a divorced and still happy family.

For more information, visit us at www.lornajaynes.com

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 17%, or about 12.5 million, of the nation's children and teens are obese. Since 1980, according to CDC statistics, obesity rates have nearly tripled.

Should parents of extremely obese children lose custody for not controlling their kids' weight? An article by Dr. David Ludwig in the Journal of the American Medical Association answers in the affirmative, and joins ranks with others who believe the government should be allowed to intervene in extreme cases and that putting children in foster care may be better and more ethical than obesity surgery.

Roughly 2 million U.S. children are extremely obese and though most are not in any imminent danger, many have obesity-related conditions such as Type 2 diabetes, breathing difficulties and liver problems that could kill them by age 30. It is these kids for whom state intervention, including education, parent training, and temporary protective custody in the most extreme cases, should be considered, according to Dr. Ludwig.

Dr. Ludwig states that this is not to blame parents, but rather to act in the children's best interest and get them help that for whatever reason their parents are unable to provide. Others argue that this debate blames parents when childhood obesity is more likely due to advertising, marketing, peer pressure, the suburban environment - things a parent cannot control.

As lamented by the eminent social critic, James Howard Kunstler, "Our towns have committed ritualized suicide in thrall to the WalMart God. Most Americans live in suburban habitats that are isolating, disaggregated, and neurologically punishing, and from which every last human quality unrelated to shopping convenience and personal hygiene has been expunged. We live in places where virtually no activity or service can be accessed without driving a car, and the (usually solo) journey past horrifying vistas of on-ramps and off-ramps offers no chance of a social encounter along the way. Our suburban environments have by definition destroyed the transition between the urban habitat and the rural hinterlands. In other words, we can't walk out of town into the countryside anywhere. Our "homes," as we have taken to calling mere mass-produced vinyl boxes at the prompting of the realtors, exist in settings leached of meaningful public space or connection to civic amenity, with all activity focused inward to the canned entertainments piped into giant receivers -- where the children especially sprawl in masturbatory trances, fondling joysticks and keyboards, engorged on cheez doodles and taco chips."

Maybe that is an extreme characterization, although I think not, but either way, there is no doubt that our children are becoming increasingly obese, and this debate provides much fodder for high-conflict divorcing parents and their hired gun litigators with accusations about their children's weight and nutrition in an effort to convince judges that the other parent is inadequate.

Child custody and visitation battles have always been ugly. But now obesity is increasingly added to the mix of diatribes and aspersions cast from one parent to the other. The specifics vary. Sometimes it is a grossly overweight child and allegations that soft drinks and fast food comprise the child's primary diet. Or perhaps, it is that the other parent is too obese to parent effectively.

Also, a few high profile news events have illuminated the obesity-and-custody issue. In 2009, a 555-pound, 14-year-old South Carolina boy was removed to foster care after his mother was arrested and charged with criminal neglect. The state's Department of Social Services had determined that without state intervention, the boy was at risk of serious harm.

For judges in many states and in California, the question of custody turns on one issue: What is in the best interest of the child? The trend toward shared custody and child-support arrangements often turn on the relative strengths and weaknesses of each parent, so custody battles have become more contentious, since, unfortunately, it seems that people can always find another thing to fight over. How sad when it is their children.
To help judges, some states have added specific criteria to look at when considering the best interests of a child, such as to what degree is a child exercising and eating well. More fodder for the fight.

But parents in a Collaborative Divorce that includes a full team, divorce coaches and a child professional, can benefit from the child development advice and expertise to learn how to co-parent and communicate well and support each other in promoting the best possible physical and emotional health and well being of their children. So maybe it won't change the physical environment articulated so well by JH Kunstler, but at least families can work together to hopefully, limit the toxic effects of that environment.

For more information about this or any other family law matter, please contact Lorna Jaynes by calling (510) 795-6304, or visit the website at www.lornajaynes.com.

Since Americans both divorce and move in significant numbers it is no surprise that move-away and relocation issues between divorced parents arise frequently.

The consequences of a move-away case can profoundly impact both the parents and their children and the cases are far more conflicted than the typical high-conflict child custody dispute where the parents fight over the amount of time each will have with the children. The children, caught in the middle of their parents' battle, often feel pressured to choose between their parents, and even when there is not such a choice, the children's relationship with the non-custodial parent is often changed forever.

In 1996, the California State Supreme Court in Burgess v. Burgess made it much easier than it had been for primary custodial parents to move-away. In Burgess, the mother wanted to move with the couple's two children to a town about 40 minutes away. After winning in the Superior Court and losing in the District Court of Appeal, the wife successfully convinced the California State Supreme Court that the trial judge made the right decision in allowing her to move with the children.

The Supreme Court held that a custodial parent who is requesting to move with the children only needs to convince the court that the move would be in the children's best interests. The moving parent no longer had to show that there was an urgent need for the children to move or that a dire situation justified the move. To hold otherwise, the Court said, would require it to ignore the reality that people often relocate after they get divorced. Under Burgess, the only limit on the custodial parent's right to move was the requirement that the move could not be based on a "bad" reason, such as to impede the non-custodial parent's time with the child.

Move-away disputes generally arise where there is an already existing child custody order and the custodial parent wants to relocate the child to another area. In its decision, the Supreme Court said that the nature of the existing child custody order would determine the scope of the court's inquiry in ruling on the matter. So, in cases where the custodial parent has the child for a majority of the time, the non-custodial parent has the burden of convincing the court that there is a "change of circumstances" that require the court to award custody to the non-custodial parent. However, where the parents have a shared custodial arrangement, the trial court was required to make a full redetermination of what custody order was in the best interests of the children.

Unfortunately, however, the Court did not define what it meant by a "shared" custodial arrangement. A general definition was developed in several decisions by the California District Courts of Appeal, in the years following Burgess holding that a shared custody arrangement exists if the noncustodial parent had physical custody at least 40% of the time.

In 2004, 5he California State Supreme Court reconsidered the issue in the Marriage of Lamusga, where the Court reaffirmed and further clarified its Burgess ruling.

In Lamusga the mother asked the court's permission to move from California to Cleveland with the couple's two sons. The Superior Court judge denied the mother's request and the Court of Appeal reversed. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal and thereby restored the Superior Court's denial of the mother's request.
The Court provided a list of factors to be considered when deciding whether to modify a custody order in a move-away situation.

1. If the move-away request is part of an initial child custody determination, the court's decision is to be based on a determination of what arrangement is in the best interests of the child. (See section 3, below)
2. If the request is for a modification of an existing custody order, it depends upon the nature of the current custody arrangement.
• If the parents are sharing physical custody of the child (i.e. at least a 60%/40% sharing) the decision is based on what is in the children's best interests. (See section 3, below)
• If one parent has physical custody of the child for more than 60% of the time, that parent has a presumptive right to move unless the non-custodial parent successfully convinces the court that
• • the move is being made in bad faith, i.e. is motivated by the custodial parent's desire to reduce or eliminate the other parent's contact with the children, or
  • the move would be detrimental to the welfare of the child. In determining if the move would be detrimental to the child, the court is to consider the effect the move will have on the child's relationship with the other parent after the move.
• In determining what custodial arrangement is in the children's best interests the court is to consider, among other things, the following:
  
  
  
  • The children's need for stability and continuity.
  
  
  • The distance of the move.
  
  
  • The age of the children.
  
  
  • The children's relationship with both parents.
  
  
  • The relationship between the parents, including their ability to communicate and cooperate effectively and their willingness to put the interests of the children above their individual interests.
  
  
  • The wishes of the children if they are mature enough for such an inquiry to be appropriate.
  
  
  • The reasons for the proposed move.
  
  
  • The extent to which the parents currently are sharing custody.
  
  
  • The parent who is opposing the move-away request has the right to request a child custody evaluation by a court-appointed expert.
  
  

Consequently, parents who hope to move away should not act in a way that compromises or undermines the relationship between the child and the other parent. Nor should they speak negatively about the other parent to, or in the presence of, the children. A calendar recording time with each parent should be maintained. A move to a location with extended family nearby is always helpful. And file papers as early as possible and try to avoid an initial custody order with any move-away restrictions for the future and that the initial order provides you with sole physical custody.

Parents objecting to the other parent's move should try to insure that an initial order provides for joint physical custody and language stating that neither can change the children's residence beyond a limited geographical area. And of course, spend as much time as possible with the children and record the time and be involved with all aspects of their lives.

It is necessary to act to protect parental rights and the parent-child reltionship when either parent moves away, regardless of whether the child will be moving, and especially when the move impacts one parent's time spent with the child. Due to the relocation, the co-parenting plan will need to be modified so the parent-child relationship can be maintained for both parents and the child.

A litigated move-away case requires the assistance of experienced family law attorney in your area, so if you are involved in a parental move-away, consult one today.

But rather than litigating the issue, consider working with Collaborative attorneys or a mediator and a Collaborative Child Specialist and possibly Divorce Coaches to help you and your spouse resolve the issue in a child-centered and family-centered way that will honor the needs and interests of all involved.

For more information, visit us at www.lornajaynes.com

A recent California Court of Appeal opinion upheld a grant of visitation to a grandparent over a father's objection.

Child custody and visitation issues often give rise to the most high conflict disputes in a California divorce. If parents can't agree about living arrangements, vacation schedules and the best educational environment for their child or children, these decisions may very well be made by a family court judge based on his or her assessment of the best interests of the children and the parents' capabilities.

A recent California Court of Appeal Opinion in Hoag v. Diedjomahor considered a less common scenario: the court's grant of visitation to a grandparent over a parent's objection. The maternal grandmother filed for visitation following the death of her daughter, the mother of couple's daughters. The parents had lived at the grandmother's home, as had the mother and children alone during a period of legal separation. After the parents reconciled, the grandmother moved in with the family.

Soon thereafter, the mother filed for divorce, but died about a month later. The grandmother then petitioned for guardianship, claiming that the father was an unfit parent, and the father then countered with evidence of the grandmother's prior drug use and the loss of custody of her own children years before. The court found that no issues of concern were raised from a Child Protective Services investigation and did not grant the guardianship request to the grandmother, but it did grant her temporary visitation.

Several months later, the grandmother petitioned for permanent visitation rights. The court granted the petition based on a mediator's recommendation of a visitation schedule that included three hours of weekly visitation plus every other weekend. The court's decision was based largely on its finding that the father was opposed to reasonable visitation and that his offers were "feigned at best and without any substance."

Appellate Court Upholds Grant of Visitation to Grandmother

The father appealed the judgment for permanent visitation based on his constitutional due process rights. The California Court of Appeal reviewed the case primarily on the standard provided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Troxel v. Granville, which stated that the Due Process Clause does not permit state governments to infringe on the fundamental rights of parents to make child-rearing decisions "simply because a state judge believes a 'better' decision could be made."

On review, the California court emphasized that child-rearing decisions are not immune to judicial review. While the law presumes that a parent is acting in his or her children's best interests in proceedings involving a non-parent who seeks custodial recognition, the father had acknowledged to the trial court that visitation with the children was in the children's best interests. Therefore, denial of visitation was essentially spiteful, and the court's grant of grandparent visitation was proper.

Clearly, the specific circumstances behind every California family law dispute can make a big difference in the outcome. A California divorce lawyer will help a client understand the facts of his or her situation in light of current legal standards.

Visit us at www.lornajaynes.com

Until now, the law in California regarding a child's ability to address the court in his or her parents' custody case has been very limited, and rarely are children able to testify. Courts have typically heard the child's perspective through reports, or from third parties, such as the court-appointed mediators or sometimes therapists.
The California legislature has approved amendments to this process under Senate Bill AB 1050. The new law, which amends California Family Code §3042 is effective January 1, 2012, modifies the rules about children speaking to the court and give children a greater voice in their custody preferences.

"If a child is of sufficient age and capacity to reason so as to form an intelligent preference as to custody or visitation, the court shall consider, and give due weight to, the wishes of the child in making an order granting or modifying custody or visitation," states Amendment (a) of AB 1050.

Under AB 1050, new procedures will require a court to allow a child to address the court directly regarding his or her preferences, if a child is age 14 or older and so wishes, unless the court determines that doing so is not in the child's best interests (and in that case, the court must state its reasons on the record). If, under the new law, the court precludes a child from testifying in the matter, the court must then provide alternative means of obtaining input from the child and other information regarding the child's preferences (California Family Code §3042(e)).

The new law also clarifies that the court can take into account a child's preferences for child custody and visitation. And the law permits any of several individuals to assist a court in determining whether a child wishes to address the court, including a child's own appointed counsel, an investigator, a mediator, custody evaluator, either parent, or either parent's attorney. The judge may also inquire about whether the child wishes to address the court.

AB 1050 does not prevent a court from allowing a child under age 14 to address the court if the court deems it appropriate, but there is no requirement that the court allow a child to do so.

This provides much more opportunity for mature children to have their preferences heard and to be taken seriously when it comes to matters of custody and visitation, important issues in children's lives.

For more information about the amendments to California Family Code §3042 or any other family law matter, please contact Lorna jaynes by calling (510) 795-6304, or visit the website at www.lornajaynes.com.

Sorting out and establishing visitation or co-parenting schedules for the holidays can be stressful and unpleasant, but it does not have to be. If it is stressful and unpleasant for you, it is probably also for the kids, and that is not what most parents want for their kids any time, and in particular during a season that is supposed to highlight our better natures.
Hopefully, the following tips will help.

1) Establish a standard that works for all - Alternating holidays every year works well for some families. If the other parent has the kids for Thanksgiving or Christmas this year, next year will be your turn turn. A regular plan can be helpful in eliminating conflict.

2) Be flexible and compromise - Despite your best efforts to create a regular standard, life happens and it is important to be willing to be flexible, compromise and make changes to adjust to the inevitable turns in the road that don't work with the standard schedule.

3) Be respectful - Treat the other parent with respect. You may not want to be spouses or partners anymore, but you need to move forward in a way that will create a positive and mutual co-parenting relationship; honoring the other as a parent. This is important even when the other spouse does not parent the same way you do or would like them to.

4) Don't mix issues - Bringing in relationship issues between you and the other parent or other parenting disagreements may exacerbate the problem and make the holiday schedule even more difficult.

5) Choose your battles - Most everyone has some holidays that are more important to them than others. Try to honor the other parent's most valued holiday as much as possible.

6) Protect the children - Your children will have negative memories of the holidays if they have to witness their parents arguing about the holiday schedule. Better yet, work to solve the problems and don't argue, but if you must don't do it in front of the kids. It is the parents responsibility to ensure that they have positive memories of the holiday season.

7) Plan ahead - Start discussions about the holiday schedule sooner than later, the longer you wait the more stress you will add.

8) Focus on you - You have no control over the other parent's behavior, but you do have control over yours. It is often difficult to take the high road, but more often than not it is the road worth taking.

9) Ask the kids - Find out what it is important to your children. It may be that a particular holiday gathering is special for them; if so, it is probably worth trying to accommodate them.

10) Plan New Traditions - The reality is that you will probably spend holiday time with your children than you did before. Use it as an opportunity to make the time you have together special and meaningful and create new traditions and memories that you and your children will cherish.

11) Breathe - The holidays can be stressful even if you without divorce, breakups and other family problems, so take time to relax and enjoy the holidays with family and friends and find time to be grateful.

Talk to your children about what is happening
Only a minority of divorcing parents sit down with their kids and explain that the marriage is ending and encourage them to ask questions. Some say nothing, surely leaving the kids totally confused and fearful. It is so important to talk to your kids, because almost without fail, they know something is wrong, they just don't know what and that creates a great deal of anxiety. Tell them as simply as possible, what is happening and what it means to them and their lives. When parents don't communicate this to the children, the kids feel anxious, upset and fearful and have a much more difficult time coping with the separation and divorce.
Be sensitive and thoughtful
Your children love both of their parents and need to hear about the situation in a way that honors their love for, and relationship with, each parent. If you must litigate, don't leave court filings and documents out where they might be seen. Don't talk to others about the issue in front on the children or where they might overhear. Kids are curious will often go to great lengths to hear what is going on and will sneak up on phone call and other conversations.
Act like a grown-ups and keep the conflict away from the kids
This is so important and has been repeated so often it has become 'common knowledge' and yet it still happens, parents will argue and fight in front of the children and even use them as spies or messengers. Put the children first and refuse to argue in front of them or subject them to your conflict in any way.
Ensure that Dad stays involved
Studies show that the more involved fathers are after separation and divorce, the better it is for the children. Work with your spouse or partner to develop a child-centered parenting plan that allows a continuing and meaningful relationship with both of you. Strong father-child relationships help children do better academically and become well-adjusted adults. Fathers need to be more than just the fun parent, they need to be helping and involved with school, homework, extracurricular activities and also be available emotionally and a co-partner in issues involving discipline.
Don't act out of anger
Some parents, due to anger and pain, try to keep the other parent out of the kids' lives. Divorcing spouses, angry and upset with the other often think the other parent is not good for the kids. But children's and parents needs during divorce are very different. Researchers working with children of divorce consistently highlight that kids want more time with the non-custodial parent.
Be a good parent
It is OK to recognize, be present with, and work through the emotional pain you may feel. But you still need to be there for the children, both physically and emotionally. Competent parenting is one of the most important factors in helping children adjust well to separation and divorce.
Take care of your own mental health
Seek help for feelings of anger, anxiety, and sadness. Even a few meetings with a counselor or therapist can help and your own mental health is tremendously important for the well-being of your chidren. Generally, if you are OK, they will be OK.
Keep the people that are important to your children in their lives
Help your children stay involved with your spouse's family and with friends. This will help your child feel they are not alone in the world, but have a deep and powerful support system - an important factor in becoming a psychologically healthy adult.
Be careful about your future love life
Give yourself a lot of time before you remarry or cohabit again. Especially for young children, forming new attachments to new partners where the relationship may then break up, just creates more loss. And this can lead to depression and a lack of trust generally. And older children need to be given time to learn to adjust to, respect and care for your new partner also.
Pay your child support
Even if you're angry or have little time with your children, this is important. Children of divorce face much more economic instability than those from intact families even with child support. They might not notice or recognize the support when they are young but they will as they get older.

We just got a new puppy, a 3 month old Australian Shepherd and while there is no separation or divorce pending, it made me think about what that situation might look like. For many couples who choose to forego having children, their pets become an increasingly important part of the family. But even in many families with children the pet is often almost another child whom all are very attached to. However, the family law system in California and most states provides few options to divorcing pet owners.
In California and most states the law regarding human children is intended to protect the best interests of children in divorce and thus provides for shared custody and support. Pets, however are classified as personal property. Some have advocated for additional recognition and status of companion animals, but legislators have yet to show that type of vision or thoughtfulness, so there is currently no legal distinction between your dog and your sofa when it comes to divorce and no basis in the law for treating the dog any differently than the sofa. (This article assumes the pet is community property) The Court of Appeals Iowa in ruling on an award of a dog to the husband in a dissolution held that a dog is personal property whose best interests need not be considered. In re Marriage of Stewart, 356 N.W. 2D 611 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984)

VALUATION
In order to rule on property division in a dissolution, personal property must be valued, commonly fair market value. The fair market value for companion animals, however, is generally very low while the emotional and sentimental value for the parties is very high. The Alaska Supreme Court in Mitchell v. Heinrichs,27 P.3d 309 (Alaska) held that "In determining the actual value to the owner, it is reasonable to take into account the services provided by the dog. Where, as here, there may not be any fair market value for an adult dog, the "value to the owner may be based on such things as the cost of replacement, original cost, and cost to reproduce." Thus, an owner may seek reasonable replacement costs- including such items as the cost of purchasing a puppy of the same breed, the cost of immunization, the cost of neutering the pet, and the cost of comparable training. Or an owner may seek to recover the original cost of the dog, including the purchase price and, again, such investments as immunization, neutering, and training. Moreover, as some courts have recognized, it may be appropriate to consider the breeding potential of the animal, and whether the dog was purchased for the purpose of breeding with other purebreds and selling the puppies."
Another valuation method considers the companion animal's intrinsic value, focusing on the animal as an individual, based on the value to the human guardian. In Houseman v. Dare, 966 A.2d 24, 29 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2009), the court recognized a former couple's dog's intrinsic monetary value at $1,500, but also recognized that the dog represented a "special value" for which the monetary amount presented inadequate compensation.

BEST INTEREST STANDARD
The best interest of the child standard used by courts in ruling on custody and visitation typically includes consideration of factors such as the wishes of the child and parents, parent child and other familial relationships, the mental and physical health of all involved, and the child's relationship to home, school, and community. Sometimes the inquiry will focus on who has been the primary caretaker of the child. Also part of the best interest inquiry, is the presumption that siblings should be kept together.
The A.L.D.F. (Animal Legal Defense Fund) has filed.amicus briefs advocating the best interest approach Along these lines, they offer the following as advice on the website:
In determining custody, courts might consider which party has been primarily involved with the animal's basic daily needs; who takes the animal to the veterinarian; who provides for social interactions; and who has the greatest ability to financially support the animal.
Most courts reject this and stick with their personal property model view of companion animals. However, some courts have, in a circuitous, indirect way, allowed the companion animal's best interest to enter their decisions regarding custody.
In Pratt v. Pratt, No. C4-88-1248, 1988 WL 120251, at *1 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 15, 1998) the court held that the best interest standard for children is inapplicable to dogs, but stated that the trial court can consider past mistreatment of the dogs.
In Vargas v. Vargas, No. 0551061, 1999 WL 1244248, at *8, *10, *13 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 1, 1999) the court awarded custody of the couple's dog to the wife after considering that the husband was not treating the dog very well, and his home included both a scrap metal yard and a five-year-old child, despite the fact that the dog was a gift from the wife to the husband and the dog was registered to the husband with the American Kennel Club.

VISTATION AND CUSTODY ARRANGEMNTS

Some parties have argued for such a shared custodial arrangement regarding their companion animals as is common with children. There is no requirement in divorce that the parties' joint ownership of property be terminated and that title be vested in only one spouse. However, an important goal of property division is final separation. Consequently, courts often reject shared custody of companion animals based on a lack of statutory authority for shared custody of personal property, fear of the slippery slope, or judicial economy and the problems that would result from enforcing such an order (ie how to enforce, which agency would be responsible, etc.)

• In Lanier v. Lanier in Pulaski, the wife argued for custody of the dog based on evidence that she kept him away from "ill-bred bitches," ensured that he attend a weekly ladies' Bible class, and prevented others from drinking alcohol in his presence; the husband argued for custody based on the fact that he had taught the dog numerous tricks such as riding on his motorcycle and had himself refrained from drinking beer in front of the dog. The judge granted joint custody of the dog, ordering a switch in custody every six months. The wife then violated the order by moving to Texas.
Jim T. Hamilton, Dog Custody Case Attracts Nationwide Attention, in Tales From Tennessee Lawyers 180, 180-81 (William Lynwood Montell ed., 2005), this portion available at http://www.kentuckypress.com/0813123690excerpt.pdf (last visited July 25, 2009)

• In Juelfs v. Gough, 41 P.3d 593 (Alaska 2002), the couple agreed to shared ownership of their dog which was made part of the court's order. But because of danger to the dog from other dogs in the wife's home and increased conflict between the parties, the court then gave the husband custody and the wife visitation, and finally awarded sole custody to the husband.

• In Bennet v. Bennet, 655 So.2d 109, (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1995) the trial court awarded the wife visitation of the dog, but the appellate court overturned the order stating that the trial court lacked authority to order visitation with personal property, and stated that the dog be allocated according to the state's equitable distribution of property doctrine. The court was concerned with judicial economy: "Determinations as to custody and visitation lead to continuing enforcement and supervision problems (as evidenced by the instant case). Our courts are overwhelmed with the supervision of custody, visitation, and support matters related to the protection of our children. We cannot undertake the same responsibility with animals."

• In Desanctis v. Pritchard, 803 A.2d 230, 232 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002), appeal denied, 818 A.2d 504 (Pa. 2003), a couple's complaint requesting enforcement of a settlement agreement that provided for shared custody of the dog was dismissed by the trial court, and the appellate court upheld the dismissal stating that "[a]ppellant is seeking an arrangement analogous, in law, to a visitation schedule for a table or lamp," and that "any terms set forth in the [a]greement are void to the extent that they attempt to award custodial visitation with or shared custody of personal property."

• The court in Nuzzaci v. Nuzzaci No. CN94-10771, 1995 WL 783006 at *1-*2 (Del. Fam. Ct. Apr. 19, 1995) refused to sign a stipulation and order based on the agreement of the parties and their attorneys regarding visitation of the couple's dog, stating that the court can only award the dog to one party or the other and advising the couple to reach their own agreement since the court has no jurisdiction and no way to side with one party or the other in the event of a future dispute.

• The court conferred special status upon companion animals in Arrington v. Arrington, 613 S.W.2d 565, 569 (Tex. Civ. App. 1981) in classifying them as personal property but also holding that visitation should be allowed.

• In re Marriage of Fore, No. DW 243974 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Jan. 9, 2001) the wife got primary custody of the dog and the husband was granted access during the first seven days of every month. If the wife planned to board the dog for any reason she was to give the husband "the opportunity to spend the additional time with Rudy rather than putting him in a kennel."

• "Just as with childrens' visitation schedules, visitation with pets can occur during specific blocks of time during the year. In Assal v. Barwick, No. 164421 (Md. Cir. Ct. Dec 3, 1999) the husband was given a thirty day visitation period during each summer."

• In Fitch v. Eiseman, No. S-9322, 2000 WL 34545801, at *1-*2 (Alaska Apr. 19, 2000) the divorce decree included the couple's agreement for the dogs to remain with the children, which involved travel between the parties' homes as part of the children's shared custody agreement. When the wife failed to abide by the agreement, the state Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine sole ownership of the dog by one of the parties.

Clearly, just as with children, divorcing couples with pets would be well advised to craft agreements for custody and visitation outside of court themselves or through a mediation or Collaborative process.
And ultimately, as with children, try to do what's best for the pet.
Sometimes that may mean the pet stays with the person who keeps the house where it has lived, but not always. Sometimes it's best to have a shared custodial arrangement so each partner gets some time with the pet, but not always.
Unfortunately, in a divorce, there is often little common sense or thoughtful discussion. Sometimes people demand custody just because they can but most often it is because this is a painful time, and the thought of also losing their pet adds to the pain.
If the person who is most heartbroken at the thought of losing the pet is not the one who can, realistically, provide a good environment and life for it, hopefully that person can put aside his or her own desires and do what's best for the pet.

Representative Pete Stark (D-Calif), U.S. House member from California on Tuesday introduced legislation that would bar discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in adoption cases.

The Every Child Deserves a Family Act, HR 3827, which has 33 original co-sponsors, would restrict federal funds for states that allow discrimination in adoption or foster care placement based on the sexual orientation, marital status or gender identity of potential parents -- as well as LGBT children seeking homes.

Some states recently have taken steps to inhibit potential LGBT parents from adopting. Last month, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed legislation that would give primary consideration in adoptive placement to opposite-sex married couples. Additionally, Virginia's State Board of Social Services recently rejected adding protections against discrimination in adoption cases on the basis of sexual orientation as well as other statuses.

There is strong consensus in the medical, psychological, and social welfare communities that children raised by gay and lesbian parents are just as likely to be well-adjusted as those raised by heterosexual parents, based the research supporting this. Based on the evidence and research, the Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida was satisfied in 2010 that the issue is so far beyond dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise; the best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting homosexual adoption. Although California is ahead of many states in that it allows LGBT adoption, Stark's bill HR 3827 prohibits the all too common discrimination that persists despite the fact the LGBT adoption is legal in California.

Representative Stark has billed the legislation as a way to ensure that children in the foster care system have access to a greater number of adoptive families -- including households with single parents or same-sex parents.
"What's in the child's best interest is what the bill is trying to promote," Stark said. "There is no information that shows that children raised by a single parent or gay or lesbian parent households have any more or less problems than all other children."

According to Stark's office, the U.S. government spends more than $7 billion each year on a foster care system against potential single and LGBT parents and allows around 25,000 children age out annually. More than 500,000 children are in foster care and 120,000 of them available for adoption.

Disqualifying LGBT parents from adoption because of sexual orientation is wrong, especially when so many children are in foster care waiting to be adopted. The current patchwork of unfair state laws and policies denies many children the safety, stability and love they would have with adoptive parents. And I know personally many LGBT families who are loving and devoted parents and who have adopted and are giving children who would otherwise be in the dismal foster care system, a wonderful home and childhood. To not pass this legislation would be a huge disservice to these children who need loving homes.

Perhaps small steps like this will help lead the way to full marriage and family equality for all.